Humanities desk
< May 11	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 13 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 12

Actual lawsuits over use of presumed Orphan works

I understand that the law does not require a copyright holder to identify themselves in their work. If they choose to hide their identity (and reveal themselves only when they sue an infringer), they are free to do so.

My question is: Can anyone point me to any actual lawsuits arising from a person using a presumed "orphan work", only to find that a copyright holder (or claimant) is, in fact, out there? Has it ever happened??

(No need to mention the sending of cease-and-desist letters. I'm wondering about actual filing of suits). 58.111.237.8 (talk) 11:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have ready access to Lexis that I can use to answer this, but the legal term is a pseudoanonymous work, and there's specific reference made to pseudoanonymous works in the Copyright Act (assuming U.S. here). So you might try searching Louis Law or google scholar for "pseudo-anonyous" works. I could be very wrong about this, but it seems to me the term "orphan" works is a relatively new term. Shadowjams (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify some more, a lot of the works that are of concern as "orphan works" are probably not technically pseudoanonymous, but their notice will be listed as a separate entity, a publisher, etc. That doesn't change the ownership of the copyright itself. The problem with orphan works is not that they author tried to hide their identity, but that identity, let alone contact information, might be difficult to find. Compound that with the trouble of ownership passing on--the copyright may have been assigned or exclusively licensed, and there's no requirement that those transfers are recorded. This is behind a hein-paywall but this might be a good place to start: [1] and here is the Copyright Office's inquiry: http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr3739.pdf Shadowjams (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Sukhoi Superjet 100 the first civilian passenger aircraft produced by Sukhoi?

Is Sukhoi Superjet 100 the first civilian passenger aircraft produced by Sukhoi?Anonymous.translator (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Sukhoi Su-80 is an older design. Tevildo (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you call this? (Chinese history-related question)

What do you call the white thing that the Chinese scholar is carrying in this picture? Thanks. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check shaku (ritual baton). --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For those who don't want to click the link, it's called shaku (笏) in Japanese and hù (笏) in Mandarin Chinese. --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why has New York City historically been so East River oriented?

When the Hudson River is wider and actually goes inland (to Chicago after the Erie Canal)

I saw an atlas of New York history and I think as early as 1640 it seemed like they really didn't like the Hudson River side. All the port stuff (the area, not the nautical direction) was on the East River. When the street plan was finalized all the north-south streets made a backwards J curve to that river before ending, making it look like a wheel with spokes. Land west of Broadway just seemed less valuable. I'm not sure when alot of shipping started being on the Hudson River but it can't be earlier than the 1810s because there was still this bias in the Commissioner's Plan of 1811 as the avenues on the Hudson River side are twice as sparse as the other side, and the "meridian of house numbering" (Fifth Avenue) is east of the midline. To this day the formerly island-bound local government has annexed hundreds of square miles to the east of Manhattan but the city has never annexed land on the other side.

Is the current stronger there? Cause I think it actually flows backwards when the tide comes in, and they could just move ships when they were near balanced. (The East River is not a river)<-But as a tidal strait it also has current (are they better?) Are islands more defensible (the Hudson River west shore is the only mainland) Is slope important? The other side is somewhat steeper but it's not like it's San Francisco. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, islands are more defensible (think of the British Isles in WW2), and New York was threatened by Indians, the French, and then the British, up through the War of 1812. StuRat (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The East River was favored as an anchorage and landing because Manhattan's East River shore is better sheltered. Look at a map, and you will see that the Hudson shore is quite exposed from every direction but the east and southeast. By contrast, the East River shore is protected by Brooklyn, by the curving shore of Manhattan itself, and from the Harbor by Governor's Island. The prevailing winds in New York are from the northwest in winter and from the southwest in summer. Either of these winds would have a long fetch across open water before reaching the Hudson shore. Ships would tend to be driven against the shore. This is especially an issue for sailing ships. It is easiest to approach a dock to windward, because as you reach the dock you can head into the wind and use the wind as a brake. Under typical wind conditions, it would have been easy to approach a dock on the East River side and not very easy on the Hudson side. Marco polo (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]